TYPES OF IMPLICATURES

Implicature is something implied that left the implicit thing of the language in the
conversation. Yule (1996) states that implicature can be considered as an additional conveyed
meaning. Grundy (2000) shows that implicature is any meaning which is conveyed indirectly
or through hints and understood implicity without ever being explicity stated. It means due to
the conversation, the speaker have to intends to communicate more than what is said. The
speaker who communicates something via implicature and the listener recognizes the
communication using inference.

Different expert has different definition about Implicature. Yule (1996) states that
implicature is something that is more than just what the word means. It deals to the
knowledge of what the speaker said and the respond of the listener based on the
understanding of the utterance. According to Yule (1996), there are two types of
conversational implicature, namely (1) generalized conversational implicature. It has no
special background knowledge of the context of utterance is required in order to make the
necessary inferences.When the speaker and the listener are communicating, it can be implied
by saying without reference a feature of the context. (2) particularized conversational
implicature. It occurs when a conversation takes place in a very specific context in which
locally recognized inferences are assumed. Here, inferences are required in order to convey
the meaning of the speakers.

The second one comes Saeed (2003) who says that the term of implicature was
introduced by H. Paul Grice. It is an approach to the speaker’s and hearer’s cooperative use
of inference. The inference formation could be explained by indicating a cooperative
principle, called gricean maxims. Cooperative principle is a kind of tacit agreement by
speakers and listeners to operate in communication (Saeed, 2003). There are four gracian
maxims that are stated by Grice. (1) Maxim of quantity which makes your the contribution as
is required. (2) Maxim of quality which tries to make your contribution one that is true. (3)
Maxim of relevance (relation) which makes your contribution be relevant. (4) Maxim of
manner which is being perspicuous and specifically thorough the conversation.

The third expert is Levinson (2000) who adds the notion of implicature promises to
bring the gap between what is literally said and what is actually said. Based on the theory
about what is said, Levinson devides implicature into three main points called Heuristics. (1)
Q-Heuristics. What isn’t said to be the case is not the case. (2) I-Heuristic. What is simply

1
described, is stereotypically exemplified. It deals with an inference by an receiver about the
truth of a proposition expressed in a particular coordinate clause. (3) M- Heuristic is marked
message indicates marked situation.

Based on the theories brought by three expert above, it can be conclude that
implicature is something implied that left the implicit thing of the language in the
conversation. The difference among the three expert is that they have some points in deviding
the types of implicatures. Yule (1996) gives the simplier types of implicatures by
differenciating between generalized and particular conversational implicature, but Saeed
(2003) and Levinson (2000) come up with more detail implicature which are an approach to
cooperative principle by Grice and heuristics. As the differences elaborated above, some
expert also have the similarities of giving the types of implicatures. Firstly, Yule (1996),
Saeed(2003) and Levinson(2000) state the same meaning about generalized conversational
implicature, Q-heuristic and maxim of quantity. Three of these point say that when we are
communicating, speaker have reason to not using more informative. Then, these three expert
also give the same explanation according to their kinds of implicature that already stated
above. They want to give a view of implicature by infering processes which are the hearer is
able to assume the speaker’s meaning by the sentence utterance or the background and
contextual assumption based on the theory of General implicature, Particular implicature,
Gracian maxim and Heuristics.

References

 George Yule. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

 Saeed, John I. (2003). Semantics-Second Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
 Levinson, S. (2000).Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized
Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
 Mey, Jacob L. (Ed.) 2009: Concise Ensyclopedia of Pragmatics. 2nd Edition. Oxford
: Elsevier